Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff radio show, America's home for conservative
not Bitter talk radio. Be advised. The content of this program has been
documented to prevents and even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lead
to the right. Here's your conservative but not Bitter host, Todd Huff.
Oh my friends, it becomes more unbelievable by the day. Of course,
it's not unbelievable when you know who these jokers and lunatics are running our nation
today. Those that are in the media, you know, the same general
culprits, the acadamiens, the big tech crowd, those involved in education,
those in the media, those in the government, in the ruling class,
Hollywood entertainment, liberal elites deceive us day by day. There's a story in
five at Fox dot com. Where what is this? Foxnews dot com.
This came out yesterday yesterday afternoon media jokes about cocaine found in the White House.
We knew about this, We talked about this yesterday. Subheadline We need
a quote, blow by blowprobe of this now. So it's it's an example
of people in the media making fun. Now we had fun with this.
So briefly yesterday. But it's also serious. You know, you also have
to understand the context of when you tune in to a program like this,
and then you tune in to supposed news. News is supposed to be something
that is, you know, a serious review of the day's events. I
mean, they can have some fun and lighthearted stuff, sure, every now
and again, but they shouldn't be making fun of the very real possibility that
someone in the administration, maybe someone in the immediate family of the wine house,
maybe the president of himself. I mean, what are we supposed to
think of this cocaine? This isn't And look, I'm not here to get
into the whole drug discussion or anything, but this isn't marijuana. Is cocaine.
Cocaine found in the wine house. The last sentence of this article,
the last sentence of this article, which I would maintain is the most important
of the entire article, says this. An anonymous law enforcement official told Politico
on Wednesday that the culprit, the individual who has allegedly ostensibly taking cocaine into
the White House will unlikely never was unlikely to be discovered, I guess is
the way to say that. So in all likelihood, the person who carried
the cocaine into the White House is just going to be the butt of a
few jokes, a jokes from the media, from the people who are supposed
to be the people who are supposed to be giving us important information. They're
down playing the seriousness of this. And you know where this was found as
well. Where this was found in the White House, I mean there.
This isn't a place that you can just end up by chance. I mean
this is a very fairly select group of people can be in this particular particular
area. I for one, and am waiting waiting for the media to tell
me. Maybe Dan Abrams, as he did recently on who was he talking
to George Stephanopoulos, he told he told George Stephanopolis that Hunter Biden actually had
it harder that the media, or that the law enforcement, I should say,
was being harder on Hunter Biden with this plea deal that he got a
couple of weeks ago. That was evidence that they were cracking down on him
because he was the President's son. I'm waiting for them to tell us that
if this was any normal person, any normal person not named Biden, not
tied to the Biden White House, not on the one of the staffers in
the Biden White House. I'm waiting them for them to tell us that this
individual. We never would have heard about this in the news. This would
have been such irrelevant information that there's cocaine in the White House that they wouldn't
even have reported it. I mean, it's preposterous of things that these jokers
and clowns and deceivers try to get us to believe each and every day.
And how is this not a serious, serious thing. I mean, the
jokes were just popping out left and right on these so called news outlets.
Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC says this is so unusual. At least at least she
acknowledges that it's unusual for them to be cocaine in the wine House. You
and I she's talking to a fellow journalist, deceiver, an individual who does
not want Americans to know the truth. You and I have covered the wine
House for years. I can't even fathom anything like this having been found before
in the West Wing. And I go back to the seventies at the White
House, so this is pretty pretty wild. So I was there in the
seventies, She says, we didn't even have cocaine floating around the wine house
back in those days, back in the days that we're not too far removed
from what woodstock and everything else. This is just absolutely remarkable stuff. But
yet again, welcome to America in the twenty first century. By the way,
welcome to this program as well. I am your host, the beloved
Todd Huff. You can email me your thoughts, questions, feedback, anything
along those lines, including always your adoration and praise. You can do that
by emailing Todd at Todd Huffshow dot com, or if you prefer, you
can text us three one seven two one zero twenty eight thirty. Again.
That text number three one seven two one zero twenty eight thirty again, my
friends, be sure to include the appropriate amount of adoration and praise, which
I would say is generally speaking, ten to fifteen percent more than you would
first believe is appropriate. So, something else that happened here over the fourth
of July holiday that I want to talk about here in the first segment.
You know, we're still getting back into the swing of things after the extended
holiday weekend the fourth of July. I mentioned I told you last Friday,
I forgot it was the thirtieth. I guess of June. I forgot to
say I would be out Monday and Tuesday. I think the fourth was so
far out down the road. I had my head down and so forth working
on some things here. But there's a lot of things that happened a lot
of things that happened over these past few days that I want to make sure
that we hit on. And one of those. You may have heard this
and what could possibly go wrong here? Right? You may have heard that
the wine house boy, buckle up for this. I mean, I'm just
gonna read this wine house cautiously, cautiously. This is who wrote this stupid
article Politico. Wine House cautiously opens the door to study blocking sun's rays to
slow global warming. So the administration, the Biden administration, basically is open
to cautiously. Oh, we're gonna be cautious here. We're gonna be cautious.
We're just going to play with the weather. What could possibly go wrong?
We're so worried about anthropomorphic climate change, man caused man made climate chop.
Excuse me, I gotta be considerate to all genders. Humanity caused climate
change, men and women. Although I'm sure there's a study out there done
by some leftists that says men are more to blame and that women are harder
hit, or some such thing anyway, But we're supposed to believe that,
of course, climate change is man made out of control, nothing we can
do about it. You know, we've we've been warned for for decades by
the likes of Greta and Al Gore and Michael Moore and all these other climate
alarmists. They've been trying to tell us for a generation or better now,
maybe even two generations, that we're going to destroy ourselves. We're gonna burn
this place to the ground by the activities that we decide to engage in,
which include all sorts of things now, and they include driving to work.
They include eating beef because obviously cow flatulence. How can you not know how
dangerous that is. It includes having children because after off, you listen to
the radical, godless, deranged left, they'll tell you that children are not
a gift from God. No, no, no, Well, first of
all, what is God? What does that talk all about? That's what
they'll say. That's not me, by the way, that's them. But
secondly they'll say they're nothing more than polluters. Children are emitters of carbon dioxide
the most as they will say, dangerous, deadly, just totally offensive gas
on planet Earth. Of course, it's necessary, it's critical, it's crucial.
But they want to dial it back, they want to bring it back
to where they think it should be. Whatever that should be, whatever that
should be. They will be the arbiters of that. They will determine it.
They will tell the rest of us through their brilliance, through their expertise,
which, by the way, they're wrong every five seconds. They're wrong
every time that they make a prediction. How many times have they told us
that the world would be ending? I remember, I remember the late Great
Rush Limball used to have a countdown clock al Gore. Al Gore said that
the Earth would be destroyed in ten years. I think it was around two
thousand and six. I'm not exactly sure. Rush had a countdown climb timer
on his website. We have since gone well passed the time that al Gore
predicted would be the end of Earth as we knew it, because we did
not act quickly enough. And this, of course has happened on a very
very regular basis. They make predictions, dire predictions, there's not going to
be any ice here. There's not going to be any water or rain there.
Everything's gonna be a desert. We're gonna bake ourselves whatever, We're gonna
flood the planet. We're gonna do all these things. Places where there's water,
there's going to be more water. Places where there's no water, there's
gonna be less water. People in poorer countries, people who are this is
how they report it. Anyway. People who are racial and ethnic minorities are
going to be hardest hit. It's the fault of of Americans in general,
specifically wide Americans and all this sort of stuff. And they're here to protect
us from ourselves. They're here is they jet around the world on their private
jets, which I personally have no problem with. I've got no problem other
than the hypocrisy, which that's my problem. I've got no problem that Al
Gore jets around the world on a private jet. I don't care. I
don't have any jealousy. I don't have. It means nothing to me.
What matters to me is that as he is telling his audience, as he's
telling the average American, the average European, the average person on a planet
Earth that they are solely, well collectively, but also individually responsible for the
plight of planet Earth through what they call climate change. They are responsible as
individuals because they are part of a group that has collectively destroyed our planet.
They should stop taking a well, stop being involved in activities like driving and
eating beef and having children or whatever else they're telling people to do. Meanwhile,
he's jetting around the world on a private jet that if these comparisons of
carbon emissions are correct, I mean, the private jet with then virtually no
time at all, has more carbon emissions than the average American could dream of
emitting. Even if that was his or her or zer's response or desire was
to emit as much carbon dioxide per year as possible, if that was their
lone, single priority, they could not accomplish what al Gore and these other
elitists have accomplished. So now we've gotten to the point where the government,
yet again is here to save us from ourselves. And now they're talking about
one potential way, another potential way of doing that, which is trying to
figure out a way to block the Sun's rays to stop the Sun from warming
the Earth. Does this sound like something you want folks messing around with I
mean, whether or not it can be done, that's another question in and
of itself. That's one of the things that I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh
talk about. He would talk about the arrogance, the arrogance of humanity to
think, to think that we have the power to destroy God's creation so easily,
so intentionally. He used to say, in fact, that we could
get together and come up with a plan on how to intentionally destroy it,
and we still couldnt be successful. How in the world could we do it
unintentionally? So now they're messing around with us. Now they're talking about trying
to find ways to block sunlight from reaching from reaching planet Earth. I mean,
my goodness, it is a never ending barrage of lunacy here when you
listen to the stuff that we are subjected to day in and day out,
anyway long in this segment, not too bad, Not too bad. My
New Year's resolution is close to being respected here in the first segment. But
I'm going to stop and take a time out. When we get back.
There's so much more to get to, my friends. We'll do that in
due course. Sit tight, you're listening to conservative not better talk. I
am your host, Todd huff back in a minute. My friends, I
hadn't seen this, but I was just told me during the break. Corine
Jean Pierre, when asked about the cocaine in the wine house, that the
things that I never thought i'd be saying when I started this program nearly eight
years ago now, but now cocaine in the wine house. Apparently, what
Karine John Pierre, Press Secretary for the Administration, what she thought was most
important was to tell us that, thankfully, thank goodness, President Joe Biden
and doctor Jill were neither one in the White House at the moment, So
who crisis averted, I guess, And you know, some people will hear
that answer and think, ooh, that's good to know. Good to know,
no problems, don't worry about they weren't in the wine house. It's
just absolutely ridiculous. But let's get back to this story on global warming using
well technology, I guess, and tools to interfere with the Sun's rays and
their ability to reach planet Earth. So this is again the article. It's
an article at politico dot com. This was from a couple of days ago.
It was actually on the first of July, which of course was over
the holiday weekend. It says this the White House offered measured support for the
idea, measured support of studying how to block sunlight from hitting Earth's surface as
a way to limit global warming, and a congressionally mandated report that could help
bring efforts once confined to science fiction into the realm of legitimate debate. So
it's now legitimate debate to decide to discuss whether or not we are going to
interfere, interfere with sunlight from the sun hitting the planet. I mean,
if you want. This is free advice to anybody out there who's a novelist
who wants to write a story about some sort of a cataclysmic event chapter one.
It can be a scene that's set in the White House, and it
could be you know, you could change the names. You don't have to
mention cocaine was found in the White House. Maybe you can maybe you can
make it another drug. Maybe you can be heroin. I don't know,
maybe you can do any number of things. Maybe I was gonna say you
could find, you know, people who ran around the White House grounds topless,
but that's happened as well. Truth is, in fact stranger than fiction.
I guess you got to go straight for some some of Hunter's alleged escorts.
That's the only way to make it more dramatic, I guess. But
anyway, Chapter one could literally be setting the stage for we got now the
White House, which is being led by an individual who may or may not
at any moment, forget that he's wearing shoes, speaking at a podium,
who may be tripping going up downstairs, who may trip walking off of a
stage, who may randomly start to insert words into a speech about leg hair,
mentioning cornpop. He could be talking and then suddenly lose his train of
thought, which happens quite regularly. I might add, he could be citing
the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be. You know the
thing, remember, remember that beautiful bit of Biden eloquence that we were subjected
to remember by the way this was, This was this presidency was supposed to
be ushering in a new era which would restore America's standing in the world.
We were supposed to be dignified again. We were supposed to earn the respect
of these other nations. By the fifty years, half a century that Biden's
been in office. He was going to restore dignity and honor to the White
House. Now we've got topless I just think about this. We have topless
transactivists running around the White House. We got crack or excuse me, cocaine
in the White House. We've got a discussion. Those very people, those
very people are now entering into discussions about the possibility of interfering with the Sun's
rays. This should be chapter one of your doomsday book, and it could
be in the whole chapter could begin on the decision was made to interfere with
the Sun. And then I have to tell you if they first of all,
if they can pull something like this off, they're not gonna know what
they're doing. This is again from the same the same group of people that
can't tell you if it's going to rain on Friday morning, are going to
be messing with the Sun's race. Potentially. This is cataclysmic event written all
over it. Anyway, The article continues here the controversial concept known as solar
radiation modification. Boy, they make it sound so so nice. Solar radiation
modification just slightly modifying, just slightly adjusting the amount of sunlight that gets to
planet Earth. You know what needs some I mean you just think about the
things that need sunlight on planet Earth. We got crops. Think about that,
We got food to deal with. I mean, it's necessary for human
beings. It's a good thing to be exposed to sunlight. I mean,
you think about the possible negatives of this, and what are the positives of
this? What on Earth are the positives of this? They're gonna somehow I
can't think of one. They're going to potentially create cloud of your weather in
warmer months to what do you think it's gonna change the global temperature? It's
it's just crazy talk to me. But anyway, the controversial concept known as
solar radiation modification is a potentially effective response to fighting climate change. I just
I don't even know what to say to stuff like this, but one that
could have have unknown side effects stemming from altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere.
Some scientists, say some scientists, not all of them. Some of
them apparently don't see any risk here. Some of them probably are getting a
big check from somebody, one of the acronyms in the federal government, some
institute of something, some atmospheric study. Noah who knows what all these things
are. These these groups within our government that could be forking over tons of
cash to let people block the Sun, and some scientists just ever so slight
amount. Some scientists couple we found them out on the street, you know,
during a man on the street interview. Some of them might have a
problem with interfering with the Sun's rays, the rest of them totally on board
with it. I mean, this is madness what we're dealing with. And
again I cannot stress enough it's not just that we're talking about this. Again,
something I never thought I would mention on this program is interfering trying to
decide if we were going to be interfering with the Sun's rays coming to planet
Earth. But it's not just that we're talking about it. It's that the
people who are talking about it have a history of going scorched earth on everything.
I mean, tell me something that they've done. Tell me an idea
that they've implemented that has done anything positive whatsoever. I mean, I'm waiting
they get into the office, inflation goes through the roof, nobody can afford
anything. They get into office, and you look at the Afghanistan debacle.
You look at the debacle along the southern border. We've gone through all these
things. Tell me, tell me something that's gone right, tell me something
that's going as planned. Well, that, of course is the dirty little
secret. It is according to plan. For the most radical amongst us.
They like this because it puts pressure on our system of government, which,
by the way, we just celebrated over this fourth of July, the Independence
Day holiday. We celebrated the beauty of the founding of this nation. And
there are people that hate that nation, hate what it stands for, hate
liberty, hate what the founders built this nation upon, Hate the First Amendment,
the second, definitely the Second Amendment. They think that they are superior.
They think the rest of us are inferior. They think that they should
be calling the shots. They think that the smart people, coupled with the
technocrats, should be navigating every problem, that we should be following the scientists.
And dare I point out that it's the scientists who are telling us that
they don't see any problem. If you listen to the media hacks here at
Politico, allegedly you look at this and you think they don't see anything wrong
with it. They don't see anything wrong with messing with the Sun's rays.
And this is from an administration that gets literally nothing right. Everything they touched
is destroyed. It is a metaphorical dumpster fire in every single conceivable way.
And now they're wanting to interfere with the Sun's rays. What on earth could
possibly go wrong? Quick? Time out my friends back in a minute.
Welcome back, my friends. So something else that I wanted to get to
that happened over the fourth of July holiday, there was a ruling from a
federal judge. Ruling from a federal judge. This federal judge US District Court
Judge Terry A. Doughty dought Y ordered an injunction on oh, this is
fantastic on Independence Day on the fourth itself, to prevent looking at a foxnews
dot com article here to prevent the White House, White House officials and federal
agencies from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship, arguing past actions get
ready for it likely violated the Constitution. So what does this mean? This
means that the judiciary is doing its job. The judiciary is saying now wait
a minute. During specifically, this was during what COVID, Although this could
probably be applied to a lot a lot of things. Federal judge is being
applauded for surprise July fourth ruling stating the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment
during the COVID nineteen pandemic. So essentially, essentially, a federal judge is
saying, look, Biden, look, President and your staff, President and
your cabinet, whatever individuals you've got here, President, bribery, you're not
allowed. You cannot be going to social media companies to put pressure on them
a censor speech online really about anything, but we're talking here specifically about how
free speech was interfered with, how it was censored, how it was damaged
by the Biden administration during the COVID nineteen pandemic. And this is a decision
that needs to be applauded. We need more, we need more like this.
And you know, i'll pause here, I'll pause here. There is
a common vernacular I would say problem that I have when I hear discussions about
the Supreme Court or the judiciary in general, and people will throw terms around.
For example, they'll say conservative justices out number the liberal justices sixth three.
Now I know what that means. We all understand in general what that
means. But it should not matter, my friends, hear me out on
this. It absolutely positively should not matter if you have nine justices in the
case of the Supreme Court, or if you've got individual judges on the Federal
Judiciary, or any judge for that matter. It should not matter the judges
ideological political framework, the position that they come from. We should not care
one iota, or they should not even care. How about that. They
shouldn't. It shouldn't matter to them one iota what their political beliefs are,
because their job is to interpret the Constitution. Their job is to interpret the
statute that is in question and the case at hand, and then apply that
law as best that they can, using precedent when precedent does not obviously override
more basic principles of applying the Constitution, which is what happened in ro versus
Wade. By the way, ro versus Wade was something that was made up
in nineteen seventy three by nine old white men, although I'm not entirely sure
how they identified. We didn't talk about it in those days, but nine
old white men told women what they could do with their bodies in nineteen seventy
three, coming up totally out of whole cloth with a bunch of rules for
abortion. That is why last year, just over a year ago, now,
the Supreme Court looked at that and they said they did not they made
it up. They did not. That precedent that they established was faulty,
silly, made up precedent because they did not apply lie the law and the
Constitution to begin with. They just made up a bunch of arbitrary things as
a bunch of old white men. I like to throw that part in there,
because they tell us constantly the Conservatives are the ones old white men that
are telling women what to do with their bodies, when in reality, it
was the nine Supreme Court justices in nineteen seventy three. What was that It
was six to three? Was it six? I don't remember the vote in
the roversus Wade case, but it was multiple. It wasn't unanimous, but
it was multiple justices, old white men, telling women what they could do
with their bodies in nineteen seventy three. And then we're supposed to follow that
as though it was law. But see, it wasn't law, and it
should not matter. It should not matter what a judge's personal ideology political affiliation
is as so long as and this is the asterisk that needs to be put
there, because it matters. It should not matter in theory, but it
matters is in principle, it matters in reality because what happens is what happens
is liberals, the extreme left, they will use their position of power on
the Court to implement their political ideology even when the law and the Constitution does
not justify that that is the direction that the country should go. And so
the Sonia Soda Mayors, the Atlanta Kagan's, the Katangi Brown Jacksons of the
Supreme Court are doing. It's not so much that there's an ideological divide.
There is a divide about what the correct role of the Supreme Court is.
And the question is at well, the question is whether you should interpret the
Constitution and the law as intended by those who originally wrote it, which of
course includes the founders in the case of the Constitution, it includes potentially the
founders in some of the law that we're considering, but it's really typically more
modern day law that we're trying to apply and then of course apply it fairly
to the case at hand, regardless of the person's identity, regardless of their
gender, which this is where affirmative action comes into place, by the way,
but regardless of their gender, regardless of their sexual orientation, any of
that stuff, none of that stuff shouldn't matter under the law. Incidentally,
it's one of the reasons why I reject the terms, for example, LGBTQ
rights. We have rights of human beings, we have rights of people,
and it's a job of the court to equally apply those and interpret the law
fairly, not making up anything, not legislating their preference. From the bench.
They should be interpreting law, not not creating it. And so but
that's unfortunately not what happens in reality today. And so when we talk about
a six three Supreme Court split, really what we mean is we have three
justices who are prepared the liberal so called liberal justices who are really should be
more appropriately labeled as judicial activists. These are individuals who believe that they should
be able to implement their ideology, their political beliefs from the bench no matter
what the Constitution says, no matter what the law says, come hell or
high water, they are going to use that opportunity to push into precedent some
liberal agenda item, and that's typically typically how that's how that's done, and
there's really there's just no other way of looking at this, this case that
we're talking about. The judge is one hundred percent right the idea that a
president an administration could be pressuring private companies should be consulting with them about what
is allowed to be on their platforms because it is whatever they say, because
it's dangerous. It's not for the public good. It's silencing political opposition.
That is much more dangerous, much more dangerous in the long haul, from
allowing someone to question some policy or some statement made by doctor, doctor Andy,
doctor Faucci. What's Tony? What I say? How is it Andy?
I don't know. I don't even know where they came from, doctor
Fauci, ton Anthony Fauci. There we go. That's probably what I was
thinking, Anthony Fauci. So what matters is what matters is that you can't
be having the government silence the debate. That's the entire That's what the First
Amendments says pretty important. It's the first thing. The first thing is in
the Bill of Rights, as you should be able to basically say and say
what you want worship who you want or not worship anyone. And the second
amendment is you have a gun, because we know the government isn't going to
be really interested in letting you do that. So anyway, kudos to this
judge for this ruling. I just wanted to touch on that because it's something
that happened here over the holiday weekend and we're still getting caught up from all
of the news that would have happened then. But a time out as in
order my friends sit tight back in just a minute. Welcome back to my
friends. I got a story pulled up here. I just don't know if
I want to get I don't. I don't want to get into it.
I don't have the time, and I just I don't want to get into
what I to the meeting that story. But I do want to hit on
this. We were talking earlier about the many, many ways that the left,
the modern left, the radical left, the Democrat Party today, which
is where the left is taken over. Another area that they have created astronomical
problems is in the area of well, it's gonna upset some people, but
homelessness. Do you know Los Angeles County. I'm looking here an article in
what is this the postmllennial dot com homelessness in Los Angeles County? The homeless
population spikes too over you ready for this? This is gonna sound made up,
but this is what's being reported. Seventy five thousand homeless people in Los
Angeles County. Seventy five thousand. And who's running Los Angeles County? Who's
running California? Yeah? Whose ideas? Whose promises of utopia are constantly on
the ballot and never realized in that state. That's right, my friends,
it is the utopian promise of the radical left, often promised, never realized.
Quick time out back in just a minute. Welcome back, my friends.
I should stay here in the clothes of this that. I've got a
stack of stuff. If you want to go back and see some of the
things that we've referenced throughout the program, or even things that we did not
reference, you can go to toddhufshow dot com. Go to the stack of
stuff. Be sure to check out what is there. It's right there on
the homepage, easy, easy to find. So todhushow dot com stack of
stuff is what you're looking for. That is where we keep those keep those
articles. You'll see the article. The article I was wanting to get to
with this was build a Blasio. He and his wife, Chrline McCrae have
announced their separation. I just don't look. I don't want anyone to feel
like I'm jumping on. But there's a lot to this story. I just
don't have time to get to it. You can check it out in the
stack of stuff. But that's all the time that I have available with my
friends. Thanks for listening, Have a great day. STG.